Slashdot Mirror
Does Shareware X-Chat for Windows Violate the GPL?
pc486 writes "The popular IRC client X-Chat has recently come under criticism as to whether or not the new shareware Windows version of the IRC client violates the GPL. All sorts of points are being persued, such as pure GPL Gettext linking, gtk translation worries, copyright issues, who's code is what and more." This is a complicated tale of GPL licensing, so beware.
No I didn't read the article, but I can already tell that this is going to stir up alot of hatred towards GPL software.
The only other nice IRC client in windows that I can think of is Mirc, but its not free like Xchat. Why can't the developers of Xchat for Windows get it right the first time before turning people off to a good alternative to Mirc.
But as far as i can tell, they are only selling the "binary' version of X-chat for windows.
On the page it says that you are free to download the source code.
So how is this any different from RedHat and others?
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
Sure, They can release their own code however they like, but not other people's code they use. That's exactly what the GPL is for: to prevent community work to be taken into a proprietary product and thus depriving the community from the enhancements made to its own code.
Given that it's shareware with a 30 day binary license, does this mean that since it's sourcecode is GPLd, they must provide the source to the code which enforces the 30 day trial? Strictly udner the GPL this should happen, but it would be suicide if someone could just come along, request the source and use it to break the crippleware timer.
I don't see any way how one could lock a user out after 30 days without it being breakable from seeing the sourcecode.
This is Slashdot. Slashdot doesn't operate on any sort of intelligent, driving logic, it operates on heated misunderstanding, ideological warfare, and name calling. On Slashdot, the same people who will vocally and vehemently denounce the RIAA for suing infringers (that is: for legally enforcing their rights on their content) will hop on over to a story like this and cry for the heads of anyone who "violates" the GPL (that is: they'll demand that the developers enforce their rights on their content).
If you haven't figured it out yet, the overall setting of Slashdot is akin to a preschool playground when it comes to any sort of intelligent discussion or critical thought. The nerds that hang out here (they're not "geeks" - most of these buffoons know nothing about the technology they yelp about, they're just trying to look "cool". Most of the "geeks" abandoned this crapfest long ago) feel such an overwhelming sense of entitlement that I'd be surprised if they don't think it's unfair that random people don't stop and blow them on the sidewalk. Frankly, I don't think you could possibly find a website with a stupider, more childish "it's all mine" attitude and userbase than Slashdot. So, why bother? Join in the fun and flame/troll away. The S/N ratio is already so poor that nobody could possibly notice anyway.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
They have a full right not to make their source code available. They don't have a right to distribute their code commingled with GPLed code to the degree that the code is non-functional without the GPL code, unless they distribute the whole under the terms of the GPL.
If the guy wanted to take a GPL'ed product, mix his own code with it, and use it privately, no problem. The GPL doesn't control use, just distribution.
Alternatively, the guy could get permission from all of the X-Chat authors to use their code under an alternative license.. but if those authors haven't consented to licensing terms other than the GPL, this guy doesn't have legal permission to distribute copies of the GPL'ed code under any other terms than the GPL.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
I hope that if X-Chat is going to have troubles with the GPL it will encourage more developers to help with Mozilla's ChatZilla.
With Mozilla Calendar (Sunbird), Browser (Firefox) and Mail (Thunderbird) already spun off into interesting projects in various stages of development, how long can it be until we have a trule OSS IRC client from them as well?
I've been using iChat for a year and its fine for IRC use already.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Unless I'm mistaken - and as far as I know I am not - the GPL does not state that you can't charge for the software, but you do need to make the source available which is still the case.
:
So if 100 people contribute to a GPL 'product' for "free" (as in beer) and another group of people take that project, compile it, and sell it, making the source still available, then those 100 people don't really have a right to complain. The moment they decided to put their code under GPL is the moment that they gave other people permission to take their contribution and make money off of it.
If that irks those contributors, rather than attacking those making money off of the contributions, they should either
A. Not contribute under the GPL license
B. Work towards making it known (to the world*) that one shouldn't pay for a product*** that is simply a compile of an otherwisely freely-available product.
C. Sell the product themselves**
* this is gonna be tough - there's plenty of people overpaying for so many products that can be gotten cheaper or even for free elsewhere.
** I think this is mostly the gist of it. These contributors are irked that somebody is making money off of their contributions (in part) and they're not seeing a penny of it.
*** Of course when it concerns a 'polished' product - e.g. offering support, a boxed version, maybe a 'GUI', I think that charging money for it, even though it incorporates free (as in beer) elements, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Just my 0.02
He can charge for the software all he wants. However, he has to provide the source code to anyone who wants it. There is, however, no way for him to stop someone from building a windows binary and distributing it for free.
Zed got tired of spending time and money on providing windows binaries. So he deciced to ask that in exchange for the binaries he be compensated. The code for xchat is there. Nobody is being stopped from doing their own compiling.
GPL is free as in freedom not free as in a free lunch. Zed is perfectly in his right to charge for his time. Just as long as he doesn't restrict access to the source he can demand your soul for the binaries if he wants too.
The intresting bit is wether he has restrictd access to the windows code. Providing only paid for windows binaries would be a violation of the GPL. If however the windows source code can be downloaded without restriction there is no problem. Anymore then Suse or Redhat charging you for their binaries x-chat (wich they do through their distro sales).
Anyway smartest thing for zed to do is simply to stop doing windows. Let a windows user worry about it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Just a thought on all the inevitable "free vs. free" threads here: what gets him in trouble is that he gave away binaries gratis. If he just wanted to say "if you want x-chat for Windows, pay me $20" (or whatever) and he sends the buyer the binaries and source if requested. This would be fine, since the GPL doesn't require you to distribute binaries and source to anyone in particular if you don't want to.
This is only a problem because he released binaries without charging for them. So, this might be an example of how distributing free (beer) actually gets in the way of distributing free (speech).
All's true that is mistrusted
You forgot the FSF in your list of people selling GPLed Software. For the low low price of $5,000 USD they will happily send you a copy of binaries compiled for your platform and a set of printed manuals.
https://agia.fsf.org/order/
I was able to build xchat 2.4.0 on windows, just now. I would like to be able to up a binary of it (perhaps on xchat-win32.berlios.de) but sadly, the binary crashes when you try to connect to a server so it's useless right now. The thing compiled with no errors or warnings, and the gui starts right up with no problems. In the hopes that someone can get past the seg fault that's stopping me, here are the build instructions. They are a slightly modifed version of the INSTALL.w32 inside the xchat sources. That file, alas, is somewhat out of date. Also, I've read here that there are mysterious secret patches required on win32. I didn't apply any such patches. If anyone has them, do post them. I'm interested in setting up an xchat-win32 site somewhere.
.NET SDK, since only
l downloaded:r ent.zips -0.13.1.zip
g tk+-2.4.7.zip. bin.woe32.zip (labeled "GNU libiconv for Win32")g config-0.15.zip
Scroll down to the bottom for the details of the crash.
---------------
0. Installed MSVC.NET 2003 from CDROM. This would probably work with freevc++ and
vc7/bin/, vc7/lib and vc7/include/ are necessary (not MSIDE).
1. from http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/downloads.htm
atk-1.6.0.zip
atk-dev-1.6.0.zip
di
gettext-runtime-0.13.1.zip
gettext-tool
glib-2.4.5.zip
glib-dev-2.4.5.zip
gtk+-dev-2.4.7.zip
libiconv-1.9.1
pango-1.4.1.zip
pango-dev-1.4.1.zip
pk
zlib121-dll.zip (labeled "Zlib 1.2., official Windows DLL distribution")
2. from http://gnuwin32.sf.net/packages/libpng.htm downloaded:
libpng-1.2.5-1-bin.zip (Binaries link)
libpng-1.2.5-1-lib.zip (Developer files link)
3. Unzipped all this crap as-is into c:/xchat-devtools
Directories bin, contrib, src, include, share, test, man, manifest should have been created. Also,
zlib1.dll will be here, and a few text files.
4. Fixed the placement of 2 header files:
mv c:/xchat-devtools/include/libintl.h c:/xchat-devtools/include/dirent.h c:/xchat-devtools/include/glib-2.0
(This is Cygwin's mv. Drag and drop would work fine too..)
5. Added several things to path:
C:\xchat-devtools;c:\xchat-devtools\bin
6. run vcvars32.bat or visual studio command prompt
7. Do these:
cd xchat-2.4.0/src
nmake -f makefile.msc clean
nmake -f makefile.msc
Output is in fe-gtk/xchat.exe
--------------------
Crash occurs when you try to connect to any server. It breaks at:
vc7\crt\src\open.c line 181 in _tsopen().
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Actually that wasn't what I was arguing.
He's not allowed to do as he is doing. He is trying to take GPL code which isn't his, break the terms of the GPL by re-licensing it incompatibly with the GPL and then selling it in a binary distribution.
He is allowed to do something *similar* to what he is doing. If he hadn't tried to monkey with the licensing he could go ahead and sell a binary version so long as he provided the source code.
With or without source code, the only thing shady about what he's doing is the re-licensing part.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
Actually, it's clear to me that that right is assumed (with, of course, an acknowledgement of the source) unless the patch author indicates otherwise.
A similar protocol is used for doing manuscripts. If you send me revisions on my text that I sent to you, you must assume I may use your suggestions, verbatim or in spirit.
If you didn't want the revisions included, you'd just write _about_ what changes needed to be made, but not actually make them (which is what a patch is, right?).
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
That's 100% wrong. They did specify a license. The donated code under the presumption that the license was GPL. He has zero right to change THEIR licensing agreement. He's completely screwed up here. He wrote some of his own code which he did not want to release. He released it KNOWING FULL WELL THAT IT'S TIED TO GPL CODE. This means that all of his "secret code stash" is now GPL too. He's an idiot. In the attached letter, he even admits that he knows and UNDERSTANDS that the code was contributed under a GPL license. He would have to be an idiot to not know this. Instead of doing the right thing, he simply steals the code and says he'll take it out if someone objects.
He is ABSOLUTELY in violation of the GPL. Period. End fo discussion. You write an application which you knowingly embed GPL code into, your application and all assocaited code, up to and including what you last released, is not 100% GPL. Period. This is EXACTLY what this idiot did. The GPL is VERY explicit about this type of stealing. It's very cut and dry. He's stealing someone else's copyrighted works OR is in violation of the GPL. There is VERY simple to understand.
In a nutshell, he's an idiot. An idiot, which I might add, is in violation of the GPL.
Nope, it's door number 3. He admits he doesn't own all the code, but merely promises to remove and rewrite himself any code he didn't write if the programer asks.
That's still door #2.
Think about it. Say I download some big new hollywood movie and start selling it for $20 a pop. Then I say, if anyone involved in this movie complains, I'll stop selling it.
I'm a violating their copyright?
Fuck yes it am. I'm distributing that movie without the rights to do so.
It's the same thing here.
Any code this guy got under the GPL license can ONLY be redistributed under the GPL.
He's violating copyright law plain and simple. He simply CANNOT redistribute other people's GPL'ed code under a different liscense without breaking copyright law. He may be trying to be "nice" about it, but he's clearly in violation of the GPL.
Anybody whose code he's using can sue him, and that offer is just going to show that he was KNOWINGLY violating their copyright, and just hoping nobody would find out and complain.
Life is too short to proofread.
My read on the second question (emphasized above) is that this sort of 30 day shareware timer is in fact an attempt "to require anyone who receives the software to pay a fee" and is therefore in violation of the GPL.